freeman3 wrote:Right...so instead of using scarce public money to build a playground in PUBLIC schools that are accessible to all...the State of Missouri is forced to subsidize a religious educational center available to the few. That makes perfect sense! In other words, taxes taken from everyone instead of going to public schools that are available to everyone...they should go to a Lutheran religious group. Yeah, let's take public tax dollars and favor private religious groups over public schools. Great decision, SCOTUS!

That's not accurate and you know that.

Trinity Lutheran Church operates a preschool in Missouri. In 2012, Trinity applied for a playground resurfacing grant from the state. Obtaining the grant would allow Trinity to receive reimbursement for resurfacing its playground with a safer pour-in-place rubber surface made from recycled tires.

The state awarded 14 grants that year, but while Trinity’s application was ranked 5th out of 44 applications, the church was denied. Missouri determined that its state establishment clause forbids it from providing an available benefit to children—a safe playground surface—simply because the playground is on church property.

Actually, it is accurate. These grants are available to public schools. Again, why would award money to a private religious entity over a public school? It's ridiculous.

The first paragraph of the decision says "Missouri Department of Natural Resources offers state grants to help public and private schools, non-profit daycare centers and other non-profit entities buy rubber playground surfaces."

By the way, I saw that Kennedy is going to retire soon. So...he'll probably be replaced by some right-wing nut like Alioto, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The fate of the Supreme Court will lie in Robert's hands. The three that I mentioned do not seem to understand/care that they cannot decide things just based on their predilections. They also have to keep an eye on respect for Court as an institution. Both Kennedy and Roberts are keenly aware of that. Now that Supreme Court justices are down to only needing 50 votes...then we can count getting more extreme justices from both sides. Not good. If Kenndy retires and Ginsberg leaves... and they are replaced by two far-right justices...wow, we could see some really crazy decisions.

freeman3 wrote:By the way, I saw that Kennedy is going to retire soon. So...he'll probably be replaced by some right-wing nut like Alioto, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The fate of the Supreme Court will lie in Robert's hands. The three that I mentioned do not seem to understand/care that they cannot decide things just based on their predilections. They also have to keep an eye on respect for Court as an institution. Both Kennedy and Roberts are keenly aware of that. Now that Supreme Court justices are down to only needing 50 votes...then we can count getting more extreme justices from both sides. Not good. If Kenndy retires and Ginsberg leaves... and they are replaced by two far-right justices...wow, we could see some really crazy decisions.

"Crazy" means "adheres to the Constitution."

The funny thing is the Trump travel ban was stayed by the Fourth and the Ninth based on "predilections," not the law. In fact, most Democratic Senators are invested in what when they examine nominees?

The OUTCOME!

They don't care about the law. They, like you (apparently), care more about getting the outcome they agree with than yielding to the law as written.

Gorsuch had it exactly right: a good judge is one who does not like every conclusion he reaches. If he does like them all, he has set the law aside for his own predilections.

freeman3 wrote:Supreme Court upholds injunction on enforcement of Travel Ban only to those immigrants who can show a connection to the US by having a close family members that lives there; entities that have foreign students or have foreign workers on visa are also covered. Those without any such connection are covered by the ban. Three justices signed an opinion (Thomas, Alioto and...Gorsuch) that would have denied an injunction to even those who had a US connection. So (1) that's three justices in the upholding the ban camp, and (2) Gorsuch has aligned himself with the crazies...

Now Justice Thomas says "And I agree with the Court's implicit conclusion that that the Government has made a strong showing it is likely to prevail on the merits." A noted legal expert disagreed: "uh, everything that guy said is total bullshit "--Cousin Vinny.

To get an injunction in the district court the party seeking the injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits. Higher courts review that determination for abuse of discretion. But Justice Thomas cites to a case where stay of a judgment should only be granted when cert is probable, there is a significant possibility that the judgment will be overturned, and a likelihood of irreparable harm. (See Barnes v E-Systems, Inc. case.) Ok, so how does "significant possibility" turn into the government is likely to prevail on the merits? How could a Supreme Court Justice write something so...patently wrong?

The Supreme Court also wants to know why the Travel Ban is not moot given that it would have ended by now.